The Supreme Court of Nigeria has set aside a “status quo ante bellum” order previously issued in the leadership crisis involving the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The apex court ruled that preservative directives cannot validly subsist once the underlying proceedings have been concluded.

In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the court clarified the limitations of judicial power regarding interim measures, emphasizing that while courts maintain inherent powers to protect the subject matter of a suit, such powers expire when there is "nothing left" to preserve.

Background of the Dispute

The legal battle centers on the recognition of former Senate President David Mark and former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola as the National Chairman and National Secretary of the ADC, respectively.

The first respondent had initiated the suit via an originating summons, seeking to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing the duo as party officers. The plaintiff further sought to prevent Mark and Aregbesola from occupying the party’s national headquarters or performing any official functions pending the determination of the substantive case.

Procedural History

Records indicate that during an ex parte application on September 4, 2025, the trial court declined to grant immediate interim reliefs. Instead, the judge ordered that the respondents be put on notice to show cause why the injunctions should not be granted.

An appeal was subsequently filed challenging the lower court’s directives, specifically the order for parties to maintain the "status quo ante bellum" (the state of affairs existing before the dispute began).

The Apex Court’s Ruling

Justice Garba’s judgment addressed two critical legal pillars: jurisdiction and the nature of preservative orders.

• Jurisdictional Competence: The Supreme Court held that the appeal was technically incompetent. Under Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution, appeals as of right are permitted in matters involving the grant or refusal of injunctions. However, because the trial court had merely issued procedural directions rather than a definitive ruling on an injunction, the appellants were required to seek the "leave of court" before filing.

• The "Condition Precedent": Justice Garba described the failure to obtain leave as a fatal flaw, stating, “The competence of the notice of appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the court.”

• Expiry of Preservative Orders: While affirming that courts can issue orders to prevent a fait accompli (a thing already decided or done), Justice Garba stressed that this jurisdiction is strictly tied to active litigation.

“Once proceedings have been fully, faithfully, conclusively, and finally concluded, there is nothing left for that court to preserve,” Justice Garba stated.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that maintaining a status quo order after the conclusion of relevant proceedings effectively transforms the directive into an "unwarranted injunction."

Consequently, the apex court allowed the appeal, vacated the status quo order, and directed that all pending processes before the lower court be determined in accordance with the law.